Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Ridiculous !!!
Comments
-
Will just mean even more money for agents and players. The game is fucked at the highest level and English football is probably the worst. From a selfish perspective I’d love to see it all come crashing down.10
-
Rothko said:Gribbo said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.0 -
Rothko said:Gribbo said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
Sorry, only read the headline and didn't think in a million years that The Guardian would sensationalise a headline.0 -
PopIcon said:Rothko said:Gribbo said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.0 -
Chizz said:Covered End said:Chizz said:There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.
🤪3 -
Rothko said:PopIcon said:Rothko said:Gribbo said:Stu_of_Kunming said:Gribbo said:Khan has been vilified for being the Mayor in office when the ULEZ extension was implemented, regardless of when or by whom the plan was originally devised (kind of attacking the office rather than the man). However, it seems somewhat contradictory for him to champion ULEZ by highlighting premature deaths of children due to carbon pollution etc., while simultaneously supporting the unnecessary flying of people to the States for a few football games, in my opinion.
From the link earlier in this thread, and it's in the Guardian, so all 100% fact based. 🙄
He's clearly backing it.
1 -
Chizz said:Covered End said:Chizz said:There seems to be quite a few people without much to say about Premier League matches being played overseas, but plenty to say about their political prejudices. Odd, really. (If not surprising).
I quite like the idea of PL games being played in overseas countries, so long as fans' aspirations aren't overlooked.
I imagine Fulham fans wouldn't mind a once-every- two-years trip to Florida. Or Brentford fans looking forward to a once-every-two-years trip to Las Vegas. Especially if flight deals could be arranged as part of a sponsorship with an airline.
If not I’m not sure how fan’s aspirations are met by not being able to see their team live.
The Palace fans (and Fulham, Brighton, Brentford and so on) might get miffed at being denied one home game in 19. But I imagine their owners would be happy with the return. These clubs survive in the Premier League solely because of the money it generates for them. Additional income from playing two games outside the UK every season would make a significant contribution to their ability to compete (for which read "stay in the Premier League"). Do these teams have 20,000 ST holders? In the main, no.
Man United (and Liverpool, Arsenal, Spurs, etc) will fill any stadium, anywhere in the world. Their stadiums are filled, week in, week out. So, who is being denied the opportunity to see them play? Fans overseas, or fans in the UK? Man United v Arsenal in New York will attract a bigger crowd than the capacity of either Old Trafford or the Emirates. How do I know? Because 82,000 flocked to see them play a friendly last year.
Small clubs - the Palaces of the world - will probably be persuaded by the additional moolah for one overseas trip a year.
Big clubs will probably see the longer-term advantage of taking the game to where more of their fans are.
It's not a case of "not being able to see their team live". It could be thought of as "enabling more fans to get to see their team live". There's a commercial opportunity and, in football, money talks.3 -
Having games abroad would only be financially beneficial by TV revenue, not by fans attending2